Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
January 19, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32725
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Summary
Industrial hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana.
However, hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. Hemp
has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods. Some
estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products. It can be grown
as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products,
including fabrics and textiles, yarns and raw or processed spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home
furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. The interior stalk
(hurd) is used in various applications such as animal bedding, raw material inputs, low-quality
papers, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages, and
can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is an ingredient in a
range of body-care products and also nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for
industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites.
Precise data are not available on the size of the U.S. market for hemp-based products. Current
industry estimates report that U.S. retail sales of all hemp-based products may exceed $300
million per year. Because there is no commercial industrial hemp production in the United States,
the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and
as ingredients for use in further processing. Under the current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis
varieties, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.; Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). As such, while there
are legitimate industrial uses, these are controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it
places strict controls on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions
under which the crop must be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. Currently,
cannabis varieties may be legitimately grown for research purposes only. Among the concerns
over changing current policies is how to allow for hemp production without undermining the
agency’s drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana.
In the early 1990s a sustained resurgence of interest in allowing commercial cultivation of
industrial hemp began in the United States. Several states have conducted economic or market
studies, and have initiated or passed legislation to expand state-level resources and production. To
date, nine states have legalized the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.
However, because federal law still prohibits cultivation, a grower still must get permission from
the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property
confiscation, despite having a state-issued permit.
Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would
open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1831, 112th
Congress; H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress).
The Industrial Hemp Farming Act would amend Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802(16)) to specify that the term “marijuana” does not include industrial hemp, which the
bill would define based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s
primary psychoactive chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered
by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial
hemp to be grown and processed under some state laws.
Congressional Research Service
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Overview of Cannabis Varieties ...................................................................................................... 1
Comparison of Hemp and Marijuana ........................................................................................ 1
Production Differences .............................................................................................................. 2
Hemp ................................................................................................................................... 3
Marijuana ............................................................................................................................ 3
Hemp Production and Use ............................................................................................................... 4
Commercial Uses of Hemp ....................................................................................................... 4
Demand in the United States ..................................................................................................... 5
Retail Market....................................................................................................................... 6
U.S. Hemp Imports.............................................................................................................. 7
Global Production............................................................................................................................ 7
Current International Production............................................................................................... 7
Historical U.S. Production....................................................................................................... 10
Legal Status in the United States ................................................................................................... 11
Federal Law............................................................................................................................. 11
Previous DEA Actions............................................................................................................. 12
DEA’s 2003 Rules ............................................................................................................. 12
Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004) ................................................................ 12
Other Policy Statements .................................................................................................... 13
Other Federal Actions.............................................................................................................. 15
State Laws ............................................................................................................................... 15
Actions in Selected States........................................................................................................ 16
Legislative Activity........................................................................................................................ 18
Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................................................... 20
Figures
Figure 1. Hemp Products Flowchart ................................................................................................ 5
Tables
Table 1. Value and Quantity of U.S. Imports of Selected Hemp Products, 1996-2010 ................... 8
Appendixes
Appendix. Listing of Selected Hemp Studies ................................................................................ 21
Congressional Research Service
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 22
Congressional Research Service
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Introduction
For centuries, industrial hemp (plant species Cannabis sativa) has been a source of fiber and
oilseed used worldwide to produce a variety of industrial and consumer products. Currently, more
than 30 nations grow industrial hemp as an agricultural commodity, which is sold on the world
market. In the United States, however, production is strictly controlled under existing drug
enforcement laws. There is no known commercial domestic production and the U.S. market
depends on imports.
Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would
open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1866, 111th
Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress). This legislation was
introduced in the 112th Congress (H.R. 1831).
Overview of Cannabis Varieties
Although marijuana is also a variety of cannabis, it is genetically distinct from industrial hemp
and is further distinguished by its use and chemical makeup.
In this report, “hemp” refers to industrial hemp, “marijuana” (or “marihuana” as it is spelled in
the older statutes) refers to the psychotropic drug (whether used for medicinal or recreational
purposes), and “cannabis” refers to the plant species that has industrial, medicinal, and
recreational varieties.1
Comparison of Hemp and Marijuana
There are many different varieties of cannabis plants. Marijuana and hemp come from the same
species of plant, Cannabis sativa, but from different varieties or cultivars. However, hemp is
genetically different and is distinguished by its use and chemical makeup.2
Hemp, also called “industrial hemp,”3 refers to cannabis varieties that are primarily grown as an
agricultural crop (such as seeds and fiber, and byproducts such as oil, seed cake, hurds) and is
characterized by plants that are low in THC (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, marijuana’s primary
psychoactive chemical). THC levels for hemp are generally less than 1%.
Marijuana refers to the flowering tops and leaves of psychoactive cannabis varieties, which are
grown for their high content of THC. Marijuana’s high THC content is primarily in the flowering
tops and to a lesser extent in the leaves. THC levels for marijuana are much higher than for hemp,
1 This report does not cover issues pertaining to medical marijuana. For information on that subject, see CRS Report
RL33211, Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies, or related CRS reports.
2 See, for example, S. L. Datwyler and G. D. Weiblen, “Genetic variation in hemp and marijuana (Cannabis sativa L.)
according to amplified fragment length polymorphisms, Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 51, No. 2 (2006).
3 Use of this term dates back to the 1960s; see L. Grlic, “A combined spectrophotometric differentiation of samples of
cannabis,” United Nations Office On Drugs and Crime (UNODC), January 1968, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-
and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1968-01-01_3_page005.html.
Congressional Research Service
1
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
and are reported to average about 10%; some sample tests indicate THC levels reaching 20%-
30%, or greater.4
A level of about 1% THC is considered the threshold for cannabis to have a psychotropic effect or
an intoxicating potential.5 Current laws regulating hemp cultivation in the European Union (EU)
and Canada use 0.3% THC as the dividing line between industrial and potentially drug-producing
cannabis. Cultivars having less than 0.3% THC can be cultivated under license, while cultivars
having more than that amount are considered to have too high a drug potential.6
Some also claim that industrial hemp has higher levels of cannabidiol (CBD), the non-
psychoactive part of marijuana, which might mitigate some of the effects of THC.7 A high ratio of
CBD to THC might also classify hemp as a fiber-type plant rather than a drug-type plant.
However, opinions are still mixed about how CBD levels might influence the psychoactive effects
of THC.
Production Differences
Production differences depend on whether the cannabis plant is grown for fiber/oilseed or for
medicinal/recreational uses. These differences involve the varieties being grown, the methods
used to grow them, and the timing of their harvest (see discussion in “Hemp” and “Marijuana,”
below). Concerns about cross-pollination among the different varieties are critical. All cannabis
plants are open, wind and/or insect pollinated, and thus cross-pollination is possible.
Because of the compositional differences between the drug and fiber varieties of cannabis,
farmers growing either crop would necessarily want to separate production of the different
varieties or cultivars. This is particularly true for growers of medicinal or recreational marijuana
in an effort to avoid cross-pollination with industrial hemp, which would significantly lower the
THC content and thus degrade the value of the marijuana crop. Likewise, growers of industrial
hemp would seek to avoid cross-pollination with marijuana plants, especially given the illegal
status of marijuana. Plants grown of oilseed are also marketed according to the purity of the
product, and the mixing of off-type genotypes would degrade the value of the crop.8
4 National Institute of Drug Abuse, “Quarterly Report, Potency Monitoring project,” Report 100, University of
Mississippi, 2008. Based on sample tests of illegal cannabis seizures (December 16, 2007, through March 15, 2008).
5 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A new crop with new uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New
Uses, J. Janick and A. Whipkey (eds.), American Society for Horticultural Science (ASHS) Press, 2002,
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html.
6 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Tetrahydrocannabinol levels in hemp (Cannabis sativa) germplasm resources,” Economic
Botany, vol. 57, no. 4 (October 2003); and G. Leson, “Evaluating Interference of THC Levels in Hemp Food Products
with Employee Drug Testing” (prepared for the Province of Manitoba, Canada), July, 2000, http://www.gov.mb.ca/
agriculture/research/ardi/projects/98-231.html.
7 U. R. Avico, R. Pacifici, and P. Zuccaro, “Variations of tetrahydrocannabinol content in cannabis plants to distinguish
the fibre-type from drug-type plants,” UNODC Bulletin on Narcotics, January 1985, http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/
data-and-analysis/bulletin/bulletin_1985-01-01_4_page008.html; C. W. Waller, “Chemistry Of Marihuana,”
Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 23 (December 1971); K.W. Hillig and P. G. Mahlberg, “A chemotaxonomic analysis of
cannabinoid variation in Cannabis (Cannabaceae),” American Journal of Botany, vol. 91, no. 6 (June 2004); and A. W.
Zuardi et al., “Cannabidiol, a Cannabis sativa constituent, as an antipsychotic drug,” Brazilian Journal of Medical and
Biological Research, vol. 39 (2006).
8 CRS communication with Anndrea Hermann, Hemp Oil Canada Inc., December 2009. Pollen is present at a very
early plant development stage.
Congressional Research Service
2
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
The different cannabis varieties are also harvested at different times (depending on the growing
area), increasing the chance of detection of illegal marijuana, if production is commingled.
Because of these differences, many claim that drug varieties of cannabis cannot easily be grown
with oilseed or fiber varieties without being easily detected.9 As discussed below, among the
visual plant differences are plant height (hemp is encouraged to grow tall, whereas marijuana is
selected to grow short and tightly clustered); cultivation (hemp is grown as a single main stalk
with few leaves and leaves, whereas marijuana is encouraged to become bushy with many leaves
and branches to promote flowers and buds); and planting density (hemp is densely planted to
discourage branching and flowering, whereas marijuana plants are well-spaced).
Hemp
To maximize production of hemp fiber and/or seed, plants are encouraged to grow taller in height.
Cultivated plants become a tall stalky crop that usually reaches between 6 and 15 feet, and
generally consist of a single main stalk with few leaves and branches. Hemp plants grown for
fiber or oilseed are planted densely (about 35-50 plants per square foot)10 to discourage branching
and flowering. The period of seeding to harvest ranges from 70 to 140 days, depending on the
purpose, cultivar or variety, and climatic conditions. The stalk and seed is the harvested product.
The stalk of the plant provides two types of fibers: the outer portion of the stem contains the bast
fibers, and the interior or core fiber (or hurds).
Industrial hemp production statistics for Canada indicate that one acre of hemp yields an average
of about 700 pounds of grain, which can be pressed into about 50 gallons of oil and 530 pounds
of meal.11 That same acre will also produce an average of 5,300 pounds of straw, which can be
transformed into about 1,300 pounds of fiber.12
Marijuana
When cannabis is grown to produce marijuana, it is cultivated from monoecious fiber varieties
that have both male and female flowers on each plant, but where the female flowers are selected
to prevent the return of separate male and female plants (known as dioecious varieties). The
female flowers are short and tightly clustered. In marijuana cultivation, growers remove all the
male plants to prevent pollination and seed set. Some growers will hand-pollinate a female plant
to get seed; this is done in isolation of the rest of the female plants. The incorporation and
stabilization of monoecism in cannabis cultivation requires the skill of a competent plant breeder,
and rarely occurs under non-cultivated conditions.
If marijuana is grown in or around industrial hemp varieties, the hemp would pollinate the female
marijuana plant. Marijuana growers would not want to plant near a hemp field, since this would
result in a harvest that is seedy and lower in THC, and degrade the value of their marijuana crop.
9 D. P. West, “Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities,” February 1998, http://www.gametec.com/hemp/
hempandmj.html. Also see information posted by Vote Hemp Inc., “Different Varieties Of Cannabis” (no date),
http://www.votehemp.com/different_varieties.html.
10 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/hemp/hempbiol.htm.
11 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, “Industrial Hemp” (no date), http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-
afficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng.
12 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Marijuana is cultivated to encourage the plant to become bushy with many leaves, with wide
branching to promote flowers and buds. This requires that plants be well-spaced, by as much as
about 1-2 plants per square yard.13 The flower and leaves are the harvested products.
Hemp Production and Use
Commercial Uses of Hemp
Industrial hemp can be grown as a fiber, seed, or dual-purpose crop.14 The interior of the stalk has
short woody fibers called hurds; the outer portion has long bast fibers. Hemp seed/grains are
smooth and about one-eighth to one-fourth of an inch long.15
Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and spun
fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and
composites. Hurds are used in various applications such as animal bedding, material inputs,
papermaking, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages,
and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is used as an
ingredient in a range of body-care products and nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used
for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care products, and pharmaceuticals, among other
composites.
Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products in nine
submarkets: agriculture; textiles; recycling; automotive; furniture; food/nutrition/beverages;
paper; construction materials; and personal care (Figure 1). For construction materials, such as
hempcrete (a mixture of hemp hurds and lime products), hemp is used as a lightweight insulating
material.16 Hemp has also been promoted as a potential biodiesel feedstock,17 although some
analysts suggest that competing demands for other products might make it too costly to use as a
feedstock.18
These types of commercial uses are widely documented in a range of feasibility and marketing
studies conducted by researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and various land
grant universities and state agencies. (A listing of these studies is in the Appendix.)
13 Innvista, “Hemp Biology” (no date), http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/hemp/hempbiol.htm.
14 Different varieties have been developed may be better suited for one use or the other. Cultivation practices also differ
depending upon the variety planted.
15 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the
United States: Status and Market Potential, ERS Report AGES001E, January 2000.
16 “Hemp Homes are Cutting Edge of Green Building,” USA Today, September 12, 2010; and “Construction Plant,”
Financial Times, January 22, 2010.
17 Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008, p. 293; J. Lane, “Hemp Makes Comeback as
Biofuels Feedstock in 43-acre California Trial,” Biofuels Digest, August 24, 2009; and H. Jessen, “Hemp Biodiesel:
When the Smoke Clears,” Biodiesel Magazine, February 2007.
18 North Dakota State University (NSDU), “Biofuel Economics: Biocomposites—New Uses for North Dakota
Agricultural Fibers and Oils” (no date).
Congressional Research Service
4
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Figure 1. Hemp Products Flowchart
Source: CRS, adapted from D. G. Kraenzel et al., “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,”
AER-402, North Dakota State University, July 23, 1998, http://purl.umn.edu/23264.
Demand in the United States
Although hemp is not grown in the United States, both finished hemp products and raw material
inputs are imported and sold for use in manufacturing for a wide range of product categories
(Figure 1). Several feasibility and marketing studies have been conducted by researchers at the
USDA and various land grant universities and state agencies (see Appendix).
A USDA study in 2000 projected that U.S. hemp markets “are, and will likely remain, small, thin
markets” and also cited “uncertainty about long-run demand for hemp products and the potential
for oversupply” among possible downsides of potential future hemp production.19
More recent studies have been conducted by researchers in Canada, following that country’s
emerging hemp production. These studies by Canadian agriculture agencies, among others,
provide a more positive market outlook, given growing consumer demand and also certain
production advantages to growers, such as relatively low input and management requirements for
the crop. For example, a 2008 study reported that acreage under cultivation in Canada, “while still
showing significant annual fluctuations, is now regarded as being on a strong upward trend.”20
Another study noted that “hemp ... has such a diversity of possible uses, is being promoted by
extremely enthusiastic market developers, and attracts so much attention that it is likely to carve
19 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and
Market Potential, ERS Report AGES001E, January 2000.
20 Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008. A study prepared for Food and Rural
Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Congressional Research Service
5
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
out a much larger share of the North American marketplace than its detractors are willing to
concede.”21 Other studies highlight certain production advantages associated with hemp,
including that “it thrives without herbicides, it reinvigorates the soil, it requires less water than
cotton, it matures in three to four months, and it can yield four times as much paper per acre as
trees.”22 Other studies acknowledge hemp’s benefits as a rotational crop23 or further claim that
hemp may be less environmentally degrading than other agricultural crops.24
Retail Market
There is no official estimate of the value of U.S. sales of hemp-based products. Industry
representatives claim that retail sales in North America exceed $400 million annually.25 This
reported retail value is a rough estimate and is difficult to verify. Included in the industry estimate
of total U.S. retail sales are estimates of the size of the U.S. market for hemp clothing and
textiles, which is approximated at about $100 million annually.26 The estimate of total sales also
includes between $40 million and $100 million annually for hemp-based foods, nutritional
supplements, and body care products.27 Underlying data for this estimate are from SPINS survey
data;28 however, because the data reportedly do not track retail sales for The Body Shop and
Whole Foods Market—two major markets for hemp-based products—as well as for restaurants,
hemp industry analysts have adjusted these upward to account for this gap in the reported survey
data.29
Available industry sources estimate that product sales for some categories, such as the market for
foods and body care products, is growing.30 Growth in hemp specialty food products is driven, in
part, by sales of hemp milk and related dairy alternatives, among other hemp-based foods.31
Market estimates are not available for the value of hemp-based construction or other
manufacturing products, nor of paper and other product uses.
21 E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North America,” In: Trends in New Crops and
New Uses, 2002, p. 321.
22 Agriculture Canada, Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry, March 2007.
23 See USDA’s summary of available state studies: USDA, ERS, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status and
Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000, p. 24.
24 See, for example, Reason Foundation, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp Prohibition,” Policy Study
367, March 2008, http://www.reason.org/ps367.pdf; and J. B. Kahn, “Hemp ... Why Not?” Berkeley Electronic Press
(bepress) Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007, http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9156&context=expresso.
25 R. Fletcher, “Hemp Industries Association Reports Final Estimates of $419 million in U.S. Retail Hemp Sales,” June
28, 2011. Previous estimates reported by Vote Hemp, Inc., “The State of Hemp,” vol. 3, no. 1, February 4, 2008; also
widely reported in 2010 as part of Hemp History Week. Includes Canada.
26 HIA, “Hemp Fabric goes High Fashion,” February 11, 2008. Estimate is for 2007.
27 Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest Foods, based on his comments and presentation, “The Future of Hemp,” HIA
Convention, Washington DC, October 2009; and R. Fletcher, “Hemp Industries Association Reports Final Estimates of
$419 million in U.S. Retail Hemp Sales,” June 28, 2011. Other estimates reported by HIA are at http://www.thehia.org.
28 SPINS tracks data and market trends on the Natural Product Industry sales (http://www.spins.com/).
29 CRS communication with representatives of Vote Hemp, Inc., May 2010. See explanation in HIA’s press release,
“Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29.
30 Hans Fastre, CEO of Living Harvest Foods, based on his comments and presentation, “The Future of Hemp,” HIA
Convention, Washington DC, October 2009; and HIA, “Growing Hemp Food and Body Care Sales is Good News for
Canadian Hemp Seed and Oil Producers,” April 29, 2009.
31 HIA, “Hemp Milk Products Boosted Growth of Hemp Food Market in 2007,” March 14, 2008.
Congressional Research Service
6
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
U.S. Hemp Imports
The import value of hemp-based products imported and sold in the United States is difficult to
estimate accurately. For some traded products, available statistics have only limited breakouts or
have been expanded only recently to capture hemp subcategories within the broader trade
categories for oilseeds and fibers. Reporting errors are evident in some of the trade data, since
reported export data for hemp from Canada do not consistently match reported U.S. import data
for the same products (especially for hemp seeds).
Given these data limitations, available trade statistics indicate that the value of U.S. imports under
categories actually labeled “hemp,” such as hemp seeds and fibers, which are more often used as
inputs for use in further manufacturing, was nearly $10.5 million in 2010. Available data also
show that import volumes have increased for some product categories such as hemp seeds and
oilcake; however, import volumes for other products such as hemp oil and fabrics are lower
(Table 1). Data are not available for most hemp-based finished products, such as clothing or other
products including construction materials, carpets, or paper products.
The single largest supplier of U.S. imports of raw and processed hemp fiber is China. Other
leading country suppliers include Romania, Hungary, India, and other European countries. The
single largest source of U.S. imports of hemp seed and oilcake is Canada. The total value of
Canada’s exports of hemp seed to the United States has grown significantly in recent years,
following resolution of a long-standing legal dispute over U.S. imports of hemp foods in late
2004 (see discussion under “Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)”). European countries
such as the United Kingdom and Switzerland also have supplied hemp seed and oilcake to the
United States.
Global Production
Current International Production
Approximately 30 countries in Europe, Asia, and North and South America currently permit
farmers to grow hemp. Some of these countries never outlawed production, while some countries
banned production for certain periods in the past. Recent, reliable, aggregated data on the number
of acres worldwide devoted to industrial hemp production are not readily available.
China is among the largest producing and exporting countries of hemp textiles and related
products, as well as a major supplier of these products to the United States.
The European Union (EU) has an active hemp market, with production in most member nations.
Production is centered in France, the United Kingdom, Romania, and Hungary.32 EU hemp
acreage was about 30,000 acres in 2008, which was below previous years, when more than
50,000 acres of hemp were under production.33 Most production is of hurds, seeds, and fibers.
32 Other EU producing countries include Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal,
Slovenia, and Spain.
33 European Industrial Hemp Association (EHIA), “European Commision: Hemp and Flax, AGRI C5, 2009,” February
2009, http://www.eiha.org/attach/553/09-02_C1_Flax_hemp_presentation_26_February_2009_circa.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7
Table 1. Value and Quantity of U.S. Imports of Selected Hemp Products, 1996-2010
units 1996 2000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a
$1000
—
— 271 1,232 2,350 3,111 3,320 4,677
Hemp Oil and Fractions
$1000
— —
3,027 2,301 1,481 1,177 1,042 1,833
(HS 1515908010)
Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other
$1000
— — — — —
460 1,811 2,369
Solids (HS 2306900130)
True Hemp, raw/processed not
$1000 100 577 228 183 155 139 114 94
spun (HS 5302)
True Hemp Yarn (HS 5308200000)
$1000
25
640
904
961
989
531
568
296
True Hemp Woven Fabrics
$1000 1,291 2,258 1,232 1,605 1,826 2,335 894 1,180
(HS 5311004010)
Total
1,416 3,475 5,662 6,282 6,801 7,753 7,749 10,449
Hemp Seeds (HS 1207990220)a
metric ton
—
—
92
211
355
523
602
711
Hemp Oil and Fractions
metric ton
— —
287 281 189 154 128 215
(HS 1515908010)
Hemp Seed Oilcake and Other
metric ton
— — — — —
56 201 240
Solids (HS 2306900130)
True Hemp, raw/processed not
metric ton
53
678
181
172
151
103
83
42
spun (HS 5302)
True Hemp Yarn (HS 5308200000)
metric ton
6
89
113
102
115
78
76
42
Subtotal 59 767 673 766 810 914
1,090
1,250
True Hemp Woven Fabrics
m2
(1000) 435 920 478 452 470 560 263 284
(HS 5311004010)
Source: Compiled by CRS using data from the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC), http://dataweb.usitc.gov. Data are by Harmonized System (HS) code. Data
shown as “—” indicate data are not available as breakout categories for some product subcategories were established only recently.
a. Data for 2007-2010 were supplemented by reported Canadian export data for hemp seeds (HS 12079910, Hemp seeds, whether or not broken) as reported by Global
Trade Atlas, http://www.gtis.com/gta/. Official U.S. trade data reported no imports during these three years for these HS subcategories.
CRS-8
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Many EU countries lifted their bans on hemp production in the 1990s and, although it is a minor
crop, the EU’s farm programs support “flax and hemp” production under the Common
Agricultural Policy.34 Other non-EU European countries with reported hemp production include
Russia, Ukraine, and Switzerland. Other countries with active hemp grower and/or consumer
markets are Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Egypt, Chile, and Thailand.35
Canada is another major supplier of U.S. imports, particularly of hemp-based foods and related
imported products. Canada’s commercial hemp industry is fairly new: Canada began to issue
licenses for research crops in 1994, followed by commercial licenses starting in 1998; since then
production has grown rapidly.
The development of Canada’s hemp market followed a 60-year prohibition and is strictly
regulated.36 Its program is administered by the Office of Controlled Substances of Health Canada,
which issues licenses for all activities involving hemp. Under the regulation, all industrial hemp
grown, processed, and sold in Canada may contain THC levels no more than 0.3% of the weight
of leaves and flowering parts. Canada also has set a maximum level of 10 parts per million (ppm)
for THC residues in products derived from hemp grain, such as flour and oil.37 To obtain a license
to grow hemp, Canadian farmers must submit extensive documentation, including background
criminal record checks, the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates of their fields, and
supporting documents (from the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association or the Canadian Food
Inspection Agency) regarding their use of low-THC hemp seeds and approved cultivars; and they
must allow government testing of their crop for THC levels.38 Since hemp cultivation was
legalized in 1998, production has been variable, ranging from a high of 48,000 acres planted in
2006, to under 4,000 acres in 2001-2002, to a reported 26,800 acres in 2010—double 2009
acreage, but still less than 1% of the country’s available farmland.39 About 100 Canadian farmers
are engaged in hemp production, mostly in Manitoba and Ontario.40 Reportedly more than 300
cultivation licenses were granted in 2011, and 38 approved cultivars during the growing season.41
34 See, for example, “Health Check of the CAP,” May 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/guide_en.pdf.
35 Additional country information is available at Hemp Industries Association, http://www.thehia.org/facts.html.
36 Industrial Hemp Regulations (SOR/98-156), as part of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
(http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-38.8/SOR-98-156/index.html).
37 Agriculture Canada, “Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry,” March 2007, http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-
afficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng.
38 See Health Canada’s FAQs on its hemp regulations (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/substancontrol/hemp-chanvre/
about-apropos/faq/index-eng.php#a3) and its application for obtaining permits (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/
precurs/hemp-indus-chanvre/guide/app-demande/hemp-chanvre/guid_append_1-annexe-eng.php). Other information is
at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency website (http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/plaveg/seesem/indust/
hemchae.shtml).
39 Agriculture and Rural Development, “Industrial Hemp Production in Canada” February 2011,
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/econ9631.
40 Agriculture Canada, “Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry,” March 2007, http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-
afficher.do?id=1174595656066&lang=eng.
41 Health Canada, “Industrial Hemp Regulations List of Approved Cultivars for the 2011 Growing Season,”
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/pubs/precurs/list_cultivars-liste2011/index-eng.php; also Health Canada memorandum,
October 25, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
9
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Historical U.S. Production
Hemp was widely grown in the United States from the colonial period into the mid-1800s; fine
and coarse fabrics, twine, and paper from hemp were in common use. By the 1890s, labor-saving
machinery for harvesting cotton made the latter more competitive as a source of fabric for
clothing, and the demand for coarse natural fibers was met increasingly by imports. Industrial
hemp was handled in the same way as any other farm commodity, in that USDA compiled
statistics and published crop reports,42 and provided assistance to farmers promoting production
and distribution.43 In the early 1900s, hemp continued to be grown and researchers at USDA
continued to publish information related to hemp production and also reported on hemp’s
potential for use in textiles and in paper manufacturing.44 Several hemp advocacy groups,
including the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Vote Hemp Inc., have compiled other
historical information and have copies of original source documents.45
Between 1914 and 1933, in an effort to stem the use of Cannabis flowers and leaves for their
psychotropic effects, 33 states passed laws restricting legal production to medicinal and industrial
purposes only.46 The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act defined hemp as a narcotic drug, requiring that
farmers growing hemp hold a federal registration and special tax stamp, effectively limiting
further production expansion.
Hemp was briefly brought back into large-scale production during World War II, at the urging of
USDA, to provide for “products spun from American-grown hemp” including “twine of various
kinds for tying and upholsters work; rope for marine rigging and towing; for hay forks, derricks,
and heavy duty tackle; light duty fire hose; thread for shoes for millions of American soldiers; and
parachute webbing for our paratroopers,” as well as “hemp for mooring ships; hemp for tow lines;
hemp for tackle and gear; hemp for countless naval uses both on ship and shore.”47
In 1943, U.S. hemp production reached more than 150 million pounds (140.7 million pounds
hemp fiber; 10.7 million pound hemp seed) on 146,200 harvested acres. This compared to pre-
war production levels of about 1 million pounds. After reaching a peak in 1943, production
started to decline. By 1948, production had dropped back to 3 million pounds on 2,800 harvested
acres, with no recorded production after the late 1950s.48
42 See, for example, editions of USDA Agricultural Statistics. A compilation of U.S. government publications is
available from the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
43 See, for example, USDA’s 1942 short film “Hemp for Victory,” and University of Wisconsin’s Extension Service
Special Circular, “What about Growing Hemp,” November 1942.
44 Regarding papermaking, see L. H. Dewey and J. L. Merrill, “Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material,” USDA
Bulletin No. 404, October 14, 1916. A copy of this document is available, as posted by Vote Hemp Inc., at
http://www.votehemp.com/17855-h/17855-h.htm. Other USDA and state documents from this period are available at
http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
45 See links at http://www.thehia.org/history.html and http://www.hemphistoryweek.com/timeline.html.
46 R. J. Bonnie and C. H. Whitebread, The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United
States (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974), p. 51.
47 Text from a short film produced by USDA in 1942, “Hemp for Victory,” to promote the cultivation of hemp during
WWII. Text from this film, as reported by HIA, is available at http://www.hempology.org/ALLARTICLES.html.
48 USDA Agricultural Statistics, various years through 1949. A summary of data spanning 1931-1945 is available in
the 1946 edition. See “Table 391—Hemp Fiber and hempseed: Acreage, Yield, and Production, United States.”
Congressional Research Service
10
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Currently, industrial hemp is not commercially produced in the United States. No active federal
licenses allow U.S. commercial cultivation at this time.
Legal Status in the United States
Federal Law
In 1937, Congress passed the first federal law to discourage Cannabis production for marijuana
while still permitting industrial uses of the crop (the Marihuana Tax Act; 50 Stat. 551). Under this
statute, the government actively encouraged farmers to grow hemp for fiber and oil during World
War II. After the war, competition from synthetic fibers, the Marihuana Tax Act, and increasing
public anti-drug sentiment resulted in fewer and fewer acres of hemp being planted, and none at
all after 1958.
Strictly speaking, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et. seq.) does not
make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on the production of hemp, making it
illegal to grow the crop without a DEA permit.
The CSA adopted the same definition of Cannabis sativa that appeared in the 1937 Marihuana
Tax Act. The definition of “marihuana” (21 U.S.C. § 802(16) reads:
The term marihuana means all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the
seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture,
salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds or resin. Such term does not
include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from
the seeds of such plant, any other compound ... or preparation of such mature stalks (except the
resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is
incapable of germination.
The statute thus retains control over all varieties of the cannabis plant by virtue of including them
under the term “marijuana” and does not distinguish between low- and high-THC varieties. The
language exempts from control the parts of mature plants—stalks, fiber, oil, cake, etc.—intended
for industrial uses. Some have argued that the CSA definition exempts industrial hemp under its
term exclusions for stalks, fiber, oil and cake, and seeds.49 DEA refutes this interpretation.50
Since federal law prohibits cultivation without a permit, DEA determines whether any industrial
hemp production authorized under a state statute is permitted, and it enforces standards governing
the security conditions under which the crop must be grown. In other words, a grower needs to
get permission from the DEA to grow hemp or faces the possibility of federal charges or property
confiscation, regardless of whether the grower has a state-issued permit.
DEA issued a permit for an experimental quarter-acre plot in Hawaii in 1999 (now expired). Most
reports indicate that the DEA has not granted any current licenses to grow hemp, even for
research purposes. To date, all commercial hemp products sold in the United States are imported
or manufactured from imported hemp materials.
49 See, for example, Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004).
50 66 Federal Register 51530.
Congressional Research Service
11
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Even if DEA were to approve a permit, it could be argued that production might be limited or
discouraged because of the perceived difficulties of working through DEA licensing requirements
and installing the types of structures necessary to obtain a permit (such as fencing and security to
prevent public access). It could also be argued that, because of the necessary time-consuming
steps involved in obtaining and operating under a DEA permit, the additional management and
production costs from installing structures, as well as other business and regulatory requirements,
could ultimately limit the operation’s profitability.
The United States is a signatory of the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs,
1961).51 The principal objectives of the convention are to “limit the possession, use, trade in,
distribution, import, export, manufacture and production of drugs exclusively to medical and
scientific purposes and to address drug trafficking through international cooperation to deter and
discourage drug traffickers.”52 The convention requires that each party control cannabis
cultivation within its borders; however, Article 28.2 of the convention states: “This Convention
shall not apply to the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes (fibre
and seed) or horticultural purposes.”53 Thus the convention need not present an impediment to the
development of a regulated hemp farming sector in the United States.
Previous DEA Actions
DEA’s 2003 Rules
In March 2003, DEA issued two final rules addressing the legal status of hemp products derived
from the cannabis plant. The DEA found that hemp products “often contain the hallucinogenic
substance tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) ... the primary psychoactive chemical found in the
cannabis (marijuana) plant.”54 Although the DEA acknowledged that “in some cases, a Schedule I
controlled substance may have a legitimate industrial use,” such use would only be allowed under
highly controlled circumstances. These rules set forth what products may contain “hemp” and
also prohibit “cannabis products containing THC that are intended or used for human
consumption (foods and beverages).”55 This development of the 2003 rule sparked a fierce battle
over the permissibility of imported hemp-based food products that lasted from 1999 until 2004.
Dispute over Hemp Food Imports (1999-2004)
In late 1999, during the development of the 2003 rules (described in the previous section), the
DEA acted administratively to demand that the U.S. Customs Service enforce a zero-tolerance
standard for the THC content of all forms of imported hemp, and hemp foods in particular.
51 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (as amended by the 1972 Protocol Amending the Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961), Article 28, http://www.incb.org/pdf/e/conv/convention_1961_en.pdf.
52 International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), http://www.incb.org/incb/convention_1961.html.
53 Ibid.
54 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 1999-2003, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/1999-2003.pdf and
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/history_part2.pdf. Also see http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/
pr032103a.html.
55 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
12
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
The DEA followed up, in October 2001, with publication of an interpretive rule in the Federal
Register explaining the basis of its zero-tolerance standard.56 It held that when Congress wrote the
statutory definition of marijuana in 1937, it “exempted certain portions of the Cannabis plant
from the definition of marijuana based on the assumption (now refuted) that such portions of the
plant contain none of the psychoactive component now known as THC.” Both the proposed rule
(which was published concurrently with the interpretive rule) and the final 2003 rule gave
retailers of hemp foods a date after which the DEA could seize all such products remaining on
shelves. On both rules, hemp trade associations requested and received court-ordered stays
blocking enforcement of that provision. The DEA’s interpretation made hemp with any THC
content subject to enforcement as a controlled substance.
Hemp industry trade groups, retailers, and a major Canadian exporter filed suit against the DEA,
arguing that congressional intent was to exempt plant parts containing naturally occurring THC at
non-psychoactive levels, the same way it exempts poppy seeds containing trace amounts of
naturally occurring opiates.57 Industry groups maintain that (1) naturally occurring THC in the
leaves and flowers of cannabis varieties grown for fiber and food is already at below-
psychoactive levels (compared with drug varieties); (2) the parts used for food purposes (seeds
and oil) contain even less; and (3) after processing, the THC content is at or close to zero. U.S.
and Canadian hemp seed and food manufacturers have in place a voluntary program for certifying
low, industry-determined standards in hemp-containing foods. Background information on the
TestPledge Program is available at http://www.TestPledge.com. The intent of the program is to
assure that consumption of hemp foods will not interfere with workplace drug testing programs or
produce undesirable mental or physical health effects.
On February 6, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit permanently enjoined the
enforcement of the final rule.58 The court stated that “the DEA’s definition of ‘THC’ contravenes
the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress in the CSA and cannot be upheld.”59 In late
September 2004 the Bush Administration let the final deadline pass without filing an appeal.
Other Policy Statements
In a recent DEA report, the agency acknowledged that it has been reviewing inquiries about the
legal status of hemp-based products (such as those shown in Figure 1), including inquiries from
U.S. Customs inspectors regarding the need for guidance regarding imported hemp products. It
concluded:60
DEA took the position that it would follow the plain language of the Controlled Substances Act
(CSA), which expressly states that anything that contains “any quantity” of marijuana or THC is a
schedule I controlled substance. However, as a reasonable accommodation, DEA exempted from
control legitimate industrial products that contained THC but were not intended for human
consumption (such as clothing, paper, and animal feed).
56 66 Federal Register 51530.
57 21 U.S.C. §802 (19) and (20).
58 68 Federal Register 14113.
59 Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 357 F.2d (9th Circuit 2004).
60 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other
related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm.
Congressional Research Service
13
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
DEA’s position that “anything that contains ‘any quantity’ of marijuana or THC” should be
regarded as a controlled substance is further supported by reports published by the National
Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is part of the National Institutes of Health. Although
NIDA does not have a formal position about industrial hemp, NIDA’s research tends to conflate
all cannabis varieties, including marijuana and hemp. For example, NIDA reports: “All forms of
marijuana are mind-altering (psychoactive)” and “they all contain THC (delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical in marijuana.”61 The DEA further maintains that
the CSA does not differentiate between different varieties of cannabis based on THC content.62
Regarding DEA’s issuance of its 2003 rules and the import dispute that followed (discussed in the
previous report sections), the agency continues to maintain that the courts have expressed
conflicting opinions on these issues:63
Despite the plain language of the statute supporting DEA’s position, the ninth circuit ruled in
2004 that the DEA rules were impermissible under the statute and therefore ordered DEA to
refrain from enforcing them. Subsequently, in 2006, another federal court of appeals (the eight
circuit) took a different view, stating, as DEA had said in its rules: “The plain language of the
CSA states that schedule I( c) includes ‘any material ... which contains any quantity of THC’ and
thus such material is regulated.”…64 Thus, the federal courts have expressed conflicting views
regarding the legal status of cannabis derivatives.
Regarding interest among growers in some states to cultivate hemp for industrial use, DEA claims
that the courts have supported the agency’s current policy that all hemp growers—regardless of
whether a state permit has been issued and of the THC content—are subject to the CSA and must
obtain a federal permit:65
Under the CSA, anyone who seeks to grow marijuana for any purpose must first obtain a DEA
registration authorizing such activity. However, several persons have claimed that growing
marijuana to produce so-called “hemp” (which purportedly contains a relatively low percentage
of THC) is not subject to CSA control and requires no DEA registration. All such claims have
thus far failed, as every federal court that has addressed the issue has ruled that any person who
seeks to grow any form of marijuana (no matter the THC content or the purpose for which it is
grown) must obtain a DEA registration.66
Regarding states that have enacted laws legalizing cannabis grown for industrial purposes, “these
laws conflict with the CSA, which does not differentiate, for control purposes, between marijuana
of relatively low THC content and marijuana of greater THC content.”67
61 NIDA, “Marijuana: Facts for Teens” (no date), http://www.drugabuse.gov/MarijBroch/teenpg1-2.html.
62 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other
related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm.
63 Ibid.
64 DEA-cited court case: United States v. White Plume, 447 F.3d 1067, 1073 (8th Cir. 2006).
65 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other
related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm.
66 DEA-cited court cases: New Hampshire Hemp Council, Inc. v. Marshall, 203 F.3d I (1st Cir 2000); United States v.
White Plume, supra; Monson v. DEA, 522 F.Supp.2d 1188 (D. N.D. 2007), No. 07-3837 (8th Cir. 2007).
67 DEA, “DEA History in Depth,” 2003-2008, p. 176, http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/history/2003-2008.pdf. Other
related DEA documents are at http://www.justice.gov/dea/history.htm.
Congressional Research Service
14
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Other Federal Actions
In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12919, entitled “National Defense Industrial
Resources Preparedness,” which was intended to strengthen the U.S. industrial and technology
base for meeting national defense requirements. The order included hemp among the essential
agricultural products that should be stocked for defense preparedness purposes.68 Some hemp
supporters have argued that the executive order gives hemp a renewed value as a strategic crop
for national security purposes, in line with its role in World War II.69
USDA has supported research on alternative crops and industrial uses of common commodities
since the late 1930s. Some alternative crops have become established in certain parts of the
United States—kenaf (for fiber) in Texas, jojoba (for oil) in Arizona and California, and amaranth
(for nutritious grain) in the Great Plains states. Many have benefits similar to those ascribed to
hemp, but are not complicated by having a psychotropic variety within the same species.
The Critical Agricultural Materials Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-284, 7 U.S.C. § 178) supports the
supplemental and alternative crops provisions of the 1985 and 1990 omnibus farm acts and other
authorities, and funds research and development on alternative crops at USDA and state
laboratories. In 2010, USDA recommended $1.083 million for programs under the act.70 In
addition, Section 1473D of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy
Act of 1977 (NARETPA, 7 U.S.C. § 3319d(c)) authorizes USDA to make competitive grants
toward the development of new commercial products derived from natural plant material for
industrial, medical, and agricultural applications.71 In 2010, USDA recommended $835,000 for
the program.72 To date, these authorities have not been used to develop hemp cultivation and use.
State Laws
The past decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the United States in producing industrial
hemp. Farmers in regions of the country that are highly dependent upon a single crop, such as
tobacco or wheat, have shown interest in hemp’s potential as a high-value alternative crop,
although the economic studies conducted so far paint a mixed profitability picture.
Beginning around 1995, an increasing number of state legislatures began to consider a variety of
initiatives related to industrial hemp. Most of these have been resolutions calling for scientific,
economic, or environmental studies, and some are laws authorizing planting experimental plots
under state statutes. Nonetheless, the actual planting of hemp, even for state-authorized
experimental purposes, remains regulated by the DEA under the Controlled Substances Act.
68 Hemp is included under the category of “food resources,” which it defined to mean, in part, “all starches, sugars,
vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, cotton, tobacco, wool, mohair, hemp, flax, fiber and other materials, but
not any such material after it loses its identity as an agricultural commodity or product.” The text of EO 12919 is
available at USDA’s website: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo12919.htm.
69 J. B. Kahn, “Hemp ... Why Not?” Berkeley Electronic Press (bepress) Legal Series, Paper 1930, 2007,
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=9156&context=expresso.
70 USDA’s 2011 Explanatory Notes, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), http://www.obpa.usda.gov/
17nifa2011notes.pdf.
71 Information on USDA’s Supplemental and Alternative Crops Competitive Grants Program is at
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/10_alt_crops.pdf.
72 USDA’s 2011 Explanatory NotesNIFA, http://www.obpa.usda.gov/17nifa2011notes.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
To date, nine states have legalized the cultivation of and research on industrial hemp. These states
include Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and
West Virginia (see text box). Several states also have conducted feasibility and/or marketing
studies, including Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, North
Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont. Several other states have passed various bills or resolutions
related to industrial hemp, including Colorado, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, and
Virginia, among others.73 Efforts in other states are pending. However, in California, efforts in
2011 to allow for a hemp pilot program in selected counties were vetoed by the state’s governor.74
Actions in Selected States
Although several states have established programs under which a farmer may be able to grow
industrial hemp under certain circumstances, a grower would still need to obtain a DEA permit
and abide by the DEA’s strict production controls. This relationship has resulted in some high-
profile cases, wherein growers have applied for but been denied a DEA permit to grow hemp
even in states that authorize cultivation under state laws. Two ongoing cases involve attempts to
grow hemp under state law in North Dakota and Montana.
North Dakota passed its state law authorizing industrial hemp production in 1999.75 In 2007,
researchers at North Dakota State University applied for, but did not receive, a DEA permit to
cultivate hemp for research purposes in the state. That same year two North Dakota farmers were
granted state hemp farming licenses and, in June 2007, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court
(North Dakota) seeking “a declaratory judgment” that the CSA “does not prohibit their cultivation
of industrial hemp pursuant to their state licenses.”76 The case was dismissed in November
2007.77 The case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals (Eighth Circuit), but was again
dismissed in December 2009.78 Their latest appeal was filed in May 2010.79
Montana passed its state law authorizing hemp production in 2001. In October 2009, Montana’s
Agriculture Department issued its first state license for an industrial hemp-growing operation in
the state. Media reports indicate that the grower does not intend to request a federal permit, which
would make the grower’s attempt to grow hemp technically illegal.80 Some argue that this case
could pose a potential challenge to DEA of whether it is willing to override the state’s authority to
allow for hemp production in the state, as well as a test of state’s rights.81
73 Additional current state-level activity is available at Vote Hemp Inc. website, http://www.votehemp.com/state.html.
74 S. Nidever, “Brown Vetoes Bill That Would Have Allowed Industrial Hemp,” Hanford Sentinel, October 11, 2011.
75 The North Dakota Department of Agriculture issued final regulations in 2007 on licensing hemp production. For
information on the state’s requirements, see http://www.agdepartment.com/Programs/Plant/HempFarming.htm.
76 David Monson and Wayne Hauge v. Drug Enforcement Administration and United States Department of Justice,
Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, June 18, 2007. For an
overview, see Vote Hemp Inc. website: http://www.votehemp.com/legal_cases_ND.html#overview
77 Monson v. DEA, 522 F. Supp. 2d 1188 (D.N.D. 2007).
78 Monson v. DEA, 589 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2009).
79 S. Roesler, “ND farmers file another industrial hemp appeal in district court,” Farm & Ranch Guide, June 4, 2010,
http://www.farmandranchguide.com/articles/2010/06/04/ag_news/regional_news/news0.txt.
80 M. Brown, “First license issued to Montana hemp grower,” Missoulian, October 27, 2009, http://missoulian.com/
news/state-and-regional/article_48c091d2-c2f9-11de-a4b7-001cc4c002e0.html.
81 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
16
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
State Laws Providing for Hemp Cultivation and Research
To date, nine states have taken steps to allow for the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Several states also have
passed legislation to conduct feasibility and/or marketing studies, including Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Vermont.
Hawaii (2002, 2001, 1996): Provided an extension on previous legislation allowing for privately funded industrial
hemp research to be conducted in Hawaii under certain conditions (HB57, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2002/
status/HB57.asp; HB32, http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session1999/bills/hb32_sd2_.htm). Defined industrial hemp as
containing “0.3 percent or less of THC.” Provides for the cultivation of an initial test plot of industrial hemp. A
previous 1996 law provided for “a study on the economic potential, problems, and other related matters of growing
nonpsychoactive industrial cannabis hemp as an agricultural product in Hawai ” (completed in 1997).
Kentucky (2001): Provided for an industrial hemp research program to conduct research on industrial hemp as an
agricultural product in Kentucky (HB 100, http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/recarch/01rs/HB100.htm). The state study is
ongoing.
Maine (2009, 2003): Provided for the growing of industrial hemp if a person holds a license issued by the
Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources and the hemp is grown under a federal permit in compliance
with the conditions of that permit (LD 1159, http://www.mainelegislature.org/LawMakerWeb/summary.asp?ID=
280032156). A previous 2003 law authorized the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station to study cultivation of
industrial hemp and defined industrial hemp as any variety of Cannabis sativa L. with a THC concentration that “does
not exceed 0.3% on a dry weight basis” and that is “grown under a federal permit in compliance with the conditions
of that permit” (LD 53, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills_121st/LD.asp?LD=53). The state study is ongoing.
Maryland (2000): Established a pilot program to study the growth and marketing of industrial hemp under certain
conditions and in consultation with specified state and federal agencies; also established licensing procedures for
researchers who wish to grow hemp for research purposes (HB 1250, http://mlis.state.md.us/2000rs/billfile/
HB1250.htm). The state study is ongoing.
Montana (2001): Authorized the production of industrial hemp as an agricultural crop under certain conditions;
recognized hemp with no more than 0.3 percent THC as an “agricultural crop” (SB 261).
North Dakota (2007, 2005, 1999, 1997): Authorized the production of industrial hemp, and established licensing
procedures to al ow local farmers to grow hemp commercial y (HB 1428, http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/56-1999/
bill-actions/ba1428.html). Other subsequent bills allowed for feral hemp seed collection and breeding at North
Dakota State University (2005, HB 1492), and related to the sale of industrial hemp seed (2007, HB 1490), among
other actions (including resolution related to federal policies and appropriations). A previous action in 1997 provided
for a study of industrial hemp production in the state (completed in 1998).
Oregon (2009): Permitted production and possession of industrial hemp and trade in industrial hemp commodities
and products. Authorized the State Department of Agriculture to administer licensing, permitting and inspection
program for growers and handlers of industrial hemp. Al owed the department to charge fees to growers and
handlers, and to impose civil penalty not exceeding $2,500 for violation of license or permit requirements (SB 676,
http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measures/sb0600.dir/sb0676.intro.html).
Vermont (2008, 1996): Provided for the development of an industrial hemp industry in Vermont (H 267,
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/database/status/summary.cfm?Bill=H%2E0267&Session=2008). A previous action in 1996
provided for a study of industrial hemp production in the state (completed in 1997).
West Virginia (2002): Provided for licensing procedures to allow local farmers to plant, grow, harvest, possess,
process and sell hemp commercial y (SB 447, http://www.legis.state.wv.us/Bill_Text_HTML/2002_SESSIONS/RS/Bills/
SB447%20INTR.htm).
Source: Compiled by CRS from legislation information at various state website and summary information posted by
Vote Hemp (http://www.votehemp.com/state.html) and NORML (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3395).
Congressional Research Service
17
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Legislative Activity
In the past three legislative sessions (109th-111th Congress), Representative Ron Paul has
introduced legislation that would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in
the United States (H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th
Congress). This legislation was introduced in the 112th Congress (H.R. 1831).
The Industrial Hemp Farming Act is the first legislative proposal at the federal level intended to
facilitate the possible commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States. The bill
would amend the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. § 802(16)) to add language stating that
the term “marijuana” does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define based on its
THC content. Each Congress, this measure was referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce and to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
If enacted, Representative Paul’s bill could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the
CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation. The bill could grant authority to
any state permitting industrial hemp production and processing to determine whether any such
cannabis plants met the limit on THC concentration as set forth in the CSA. In any criminal or
civil action or administrative proceeding, the state’s determination may be conclusive and
binding.
In addition to groups such as HIA and Vote Hemp Inc. that are actively promoting reintroducing
hemp as a commodity crop in the United States, some key agricultural groups also support U.S.
policy changes regarding industrial hemp. For example:
• The National Farmers Union (NFU) has adopted as part of its 2010 farm policy
regarding specialty crops a policy that supports “urging the President, Attorney
General and Congress to direct the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) to differentiate between industrial hemp and marijuana and adopt policy
to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp under state law without
requiring DEA licenses.”82
• The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)
“supports revisions to the federal rules and regulations authorizing commercial
production of industrial hemp,” and has urged USDA, DEA, and the Office of
National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to “collaboratively develop and adopt an
official definition of industrial hemp that comports with definitions currently
used by countries producing hemp.” NASDA also “urges Congress to statutorily
distinguish between industrial hemp and marijuana and to direct the DEA to
revise its policies to allow USDA to establish a regulatory program that allows
the development of domestic industrial hemp production by American farmers
and manufacturers.”83
82 NFU, “National Farmers Union Adopts New Policy on Industrial Hemp,” March 22, 2010, press release,
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/national-farmers-union-adopts-new-policy-on-industrial-hemp-
88824362.html. Also see NFU, “Policy of the National Farmers Union,” enacted by delegates to the 108th annual
convention, Rapid City, SD, March 14-16, 2010, http://nfu.org/wp-content/2010-final-policy.pdf.
83 NASDA, “New Uses of Agricultural Products,” February 2010, http://www.nasda.org/cms/7196/9017/9350/
7945.aspx.
Congressional Research Service
18
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
• The National Grange voted in 2009 to support “research, production, processing
and marketing of industrial hemp as a viable agricultural activity.”84
• Regional farmers organizations also have policies regarding hemp. For example,
the North Dakota Farmers Union (NDFU), as part of its federal agricultural
policy recommendations, has urged “Congress to legalize the production of
industrial hemp.”85 The Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU) has urged
“Congress and the USDA to re-commit and fully fund research into alternative
crops and uses for crops” including industrial hemp; also they “support the
decoupling of industrial hemp from the definition of marijuana” under the CSA
and “demand the President and the Attorney General direct the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) to differentiate between industrial hemp and
marijuana and adopt a policy to allow American farmers to grow industrial hemp
under state law without requiring DEA licenses,” to “legalize the production of
industrial hemp as an alternative crop for agricultural producers.” 86
• In California, efforts in 2011 to establish a pilot program to grow industrial hemp
in selected counties was supported by the county farm bureau and two sheriff’s
offices (although the bill, SB 676, was later vetoed by the state’s governor).87
Despite support by some, other groups continue to oppose policy changes regarding cannabis. For
example, the National Alliance for Health and Safety, as part of Drug Watch International, claims
that proposals to reintroduce hemp as an agricultural crop are merely a strategy by “the
international pro-drug lobby to legalize cannabis and other illicit substances.”88 The California
Narcotic Officer’s Association claims that allowing for industrial hemp production would
undermine state and federal enforcement efforts to regulate marijuana production, since they
claim the two crops are not distinguishable through ground or aerial surveillance, but would
require costly and time-consuming lab work to be conducted.89 This group also claims that these
similarities would create an incentive to use hemp crops to mask illicit marijuana production,
since marijuana is such a lucrative cash crop.90 Concerns about the potential linkages to the
growing and use of illegal drugs are also expressed by some parent and community organizations,
such as Drug Free America Foundation, Inc. and PRIDE Inc.91
Given the DEA’s current policy positions (see section titled “Previous DEA Actions”) and
perceived DEA opposition to changing its current policies because of concerns over how to allow
for hemp production without undermining the agency’s drug enforcement efforts and regulation
84 The National Grange, “Legislative Policies,” http://www.nationalgrange.org/legislation/policy/policy_ag.htm; also
see The National Grange, “Hemp Policy,” http://www.grangehemppolicy.info/.
85 NDFU, “2010 Program of Policy & Action,” http://www.ndfu.org/data/upfiles/policy/2009POLICYandACTION.pdf,
p. 8.
86 RMFU, “Policy 2010,” http://www.rmfu.org/pdfs/RMFUPolicy10.pdf, p. 6, pp. 15-16, and p. 24.
87 Letters of support for SB 678 to California State Senator, Mark Leno, from the Imperial County Farm Bureau (June
16, 2011), Office of Sheriff, Kings County (July 19, 2011), and Office of Sheriff, Kern County (July 21, 2011).
88 See, for example, Drug Watch International, “Position Statement on Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.),” November 2002,
http://www.drugwatch.org/Hemp.htm.
89 Letter from the California Narcotic Officer’s Association to Governor Arnold Schwarznegger, September 18, 2007.
90 CRS conversation with John Coleman, August 22, 2011.
91 Information provided to CRS by Jeanette McDougal, National Alliance for Health and Safety, August 22, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
19
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
of the production and distribution of marijuana, further policy changes regarding industrial hemp
are likely not forthcoming absent congressional legislative action.
Concluding Remarks
Hemp production in the United States faces a number of obstacles in the foreseeable future. The
main obstacles facing this potential market are U.S. government drug policies and DEA concerns
about the ramifications of U.S. commercial hemp production. These concerns are that commercial
cultivation could increase the likelihood of covert production of high-THC marijuana,
significantly complicating DEA’s surveillance and enforcement activities and sending the wrong
message to the American public concerning the government’s position on drugs. DEA officials
and a variety of other observers also express the concern that efforts to legalize hemp—as well as
those to legalize medical marijuana—are a front for individuals and organizations whose real aim
is to see marijuana decriminalized.92
Hemp production in the United States also faces competition from other global suppliers. The
world market for hemp products remains relatively small, and China, as the world’s largest hemp
fiber and seed producer, has had and likely will continue to have major influence on market prices
and thus on the year-to-year profits of producers and processors in other countries.93 Canada’s
head start in the North American market for hemp seed and oil also would likely affect the
profitability of a start-up industry in the United States.
Nevertheless, the U.S. market for hemp-based products has a highly dedicated and growing
demand base, as indicated by recent U.S. market and import data for hemp products and
ingredients, as well as market trends for some natural foods and body care products. Given the
existence of these small-scale, but profitable, niche markets for a wide array of industrial and
consumer products, commercial hemp industry in the United States could provide opportunities
as an economically viable alternative crop for some U.S. growers.
92 For more information on legislative and executive branch actions concerning illegal drugs, see CRS Report
RL32352, War on Drugs: Reauthorization and Oversight of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. For
information on issues pertaining to medical marijuana, see CRS Report CRS Report RL33211, Medical Marijuana:
Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies.
93 T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp Production,” Review of Agricultural
Economics, vol. 26, no. 1, Spring 2004, pp. 97-117. The time period covered in this study ends with the year 2000.
Congressional Research Service
20
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
Appendix. Listing of Selected Hemp Studies
Below is a listing of reports and studies, ranked by date (beginning with the most recent).
• C. A. Kolosov, “Regulation of Industrial Hemp under the Controlled Substances
Act” UCLA Law Review, vol. 57, no. 237, October 2009,
http://uclalawreview.org/pdf/57-1-5.pdf.
• Manitoba Agriculture, National Industrial Hemp Strategy, March 2008 (prepared
for Food and Rural Initiative Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada).
• Reason Foundation, “Illegally Green: Environmental Costs of Hemp
Prohibition,” Policy Study 367, March 2008, http://www.reason.org/ps367.pdf.
• Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Canada’s Industrial Hemp Industry, March
2007, http://www.agr.gc.ca/misb/spcrops/sc-cs_e.php?page+hemp-chanvre.
• Maine Agricultural Center, An Assessment of Industrial Hemp Production in
Maine, January 2007, http://www.mac.umaine.edu/.
• N. Cherrett et al., “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and
Polyester,” Stockholm Environment Institute, 2005, http://www.sei-international.
org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Future/cotton%20hemp%20polyester
%20study%20sei%20and%20bioregional%20and%20wwf%20wales.pdf.
• T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Opportunities for Commercial Hemp
Production,” Applied Economics Perspectives and Policy, 26(1): 97-117, 2004.
• E. Small and D. Marcus, “Hemp: A New Crop with New Uses for North
America,” In: Trends in New Crops and New Uses, 2002,
http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-284.html.
• T. R. Fortenbery and M. Bennett, “Is Industrial Hemp Worth Further Study in the
U.S.? A Survey of the Literature,” Staff Paper No. 443, July 2001,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/12680/1/stpap443.pdf.
• J. Bowyer, “Industrial Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) as a Papermaking Raw
Material in Minnesota: Technical, Economic and Environmental Considerations,”
Department of Wood & Paper Science Report Series, May 2001.
• K. Hill, N. Boshard-Blackey, and J. Simson, “Legislative Research Shop:
Hemp,” University of Vermont, April 2000, http://www.uvm.edu/~vlrs/doc/
hemp.htm
• USDA, Economic Research Service, Industrial Hemp in the United States: Status
and Market Potential, AGES001E, January 2000, http://www.ers.usda.gov/
publications/ages001e/ages001em.pdf.
• M. J. Cochran, T. E. Windham, and B. Moore, “Feasibility of Industrial Hemp
Production in Arkansas,” University of Arkansas, SP102000, May 2000.
• D. G. Kraenzel et al. “Industrial Hemp as an Alternative Crop in North Dakota,”
AER 402, North Dakota State University, Fargo, July 1998,
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/23264.
Congressional Research Service
21
Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity
• E. C. Thompson et al., Economic Impact of Industrial Hemp in Kentucky,
University of Kentucky, July 1998.
• D. T. Ehrensing, Feasibility of Industrial Hemp Production in the United States
Pacific Northwest, SB 681, Oregon State University, May 1998,
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/.
Author Contact Information
Renée Johnson
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
rjohnson@crs.loc.gov, 7-9588
Congressional Research Service
22